What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Next Dearborn Video

This one is from David Woods's camera. It recapitulates some of the time period shown in other videos but gives a good wide shot of the scene which refutes a claim by the city mayor that Acts 17 was blocking a tent entrance and forcing a crowd to form by way of a bottleneck. (Remember too that in a previous video, we saw that David Wood actually asked a police officer if they should move and was told, "No, you're fine.")

Notice again here that at no time are the Acts 17 guys asked by police to stop their conversation, nor do the police make any attempt to disperse them or the group around them. Every video of the arrests of the men shows them being arrested summarily. It is particularly chilling, as I have already mentioned, to see Nabeel discussing the deity of Jesus and the atonement and being interrupted in these theological disquisitions by a policeman who asks him to "come over here" and puts handcuffs on him immediately.

David's narrative is, as always, interesting and entertaining.

I continue to be amazed that the city does not drop the charges. David's take on their thinking is in the comments here.

Comments (3)

I can't post over at answeringmuslims.com because it uses Google authentification. In any case, two points: 1) the city could try to get the videotapes declared inadmissible as evidence (on what grounds, I do not know). Then, it would be their word against Act 17's, 2) if Act 17 wants to do something, there are a number of different permissible actions under Christianity. They could agree not to sue in exchange for a promise of immunity from future arrest in similar positions (this will never fly); they could simply do nothing (turn the other cheek, in a manner of speaking); they could forgive their persecutors and pray for them (this they are commanded to do), but still sue them as a form of either fraternal correction or charity for other evangelists who might be in a similar situation; they could invite a camera crew from the local tv station next year; they could simply show up next year and keep preaching. Eventually the police will have to either put up or shut up. Above all, their actions must be with out reproach.

The best move in this case would probably be to sue them silly. This would not be in retaliation, but by means of bringing the issue to the public's notice. Even St. Paul was allowed to appeal to Caesar.

How is it that it seems there is such uniformity in police procedures in such cases from city to city? Is there no city where this would have been handled differently?

The Chicken

No, actually, they've gone to Muslim conferences all over the country and only had this happen in Dearborn. It's Dearborn that's the problem, and if you ask me, that is because Dearborn is _such_ a Muslim enclave.

They certainly should sue them silly. I take it (though I don't know this for sure) that they are waiting to see if the city will drop the charges (and if the city does, they'll be _more_ likely to sue them, which is only right) or, if the city doesn't, to see the outcome of the trial.

If the videos were to be ruled inadmissible as evidence any conviction would be almost certain to be overturned on appeal on grounds of denial of due process. Blocking exculpatory evidence would be a blatant violation of due process. The city's only hope of getting a conviction would be a jury (this would be a jury trial, right?) determined to convict no matter what and in defiance of all evidence. And if that is suspected, they should request a change of venue, in my opinion.

I agree that they should sue the city, but they should ALSO sue the mayor specifically and individually. Not just in his office but in reference to his personal remarks about them, which are defamatory. (Since when is in the official duties of mayor (rather than police chief or prosecutor) to discuss the grounds that the police have for an arrest action, and in any case to make statements that are so far from supportable by evidence?

Ideally, they should sue not only for monetary damages and punitive damages, but to require that the mayor and the police chief and ALL of the police force undertake special training on sensitivity to freedom of religion and speech under AMERICAN LAW and what it means in the good ole USA. And force these bozos to maintain a permanent training program that incorporates this as a major feature of annual continuing professional education. Please, please, I want to see a video of a Muslim cop given a reprimand by his superiors for making fun of a training presenter.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.